Carl W. Kenney II is an award winning columnist and novelist. He is committed to engaging readers into a meaningful discussion related to matters that impact faith and society. He grapples with pondering the impact faith has on public space while seeking to understand how public space both hinders and enhances the walk of faith.

Friday, October 26, 2012

Steve Bocckino's unfair assumption about Omar Beasley

Am I the only person fed up with the rhetoric surrounding the
751 South project? Proponents of the controversial project have made it the
litmus test in qualifying those willing to serve on the Durham Board of County Commissioners. The most recent attack proves that they are
willing to win by any means necessary.

Who made them
Malcolm X?

Steve Bocckino
recently questioned the motives of Omar Beasley after the Durham Committee on
the Affairs of Black people received an $8,000 donation to help the group push
their slate of candidates. The gift came
from Neal and Janet Hunter, backers of the 751 South project. Boockino claims the gift raises a red flag
related to Beasley’s position on development.

“I believe Mr.
Beasley would like to keep his support of 751 South – and vice versa – a secret, but no one is
buying it,” Bocckino told the Herald-Sun.

Bocckino’s
attack of Beasley is based on the presence of paid poll workers distributing
copies of the Durham Committee slate. In
response, Beasley told the Herald-Sun he is using a combination of paid and
volunteer poll workers.

The use of paid
poll workers is a common practice. The
People Alliance and white candidates have employed black poll workers to distribute
literature to give the impression of black support. It’s common for candidates to pass out literature
with an endorsement. Bocckino’s comments
regarding Beasley are speculative.

It’s the type of
low blow political maneuvering that has plagued this election. Sadly, the war between the local political
action committees is a distraction from the most important election – the Presidency.

Bocckino and
members of the People’s Alliance are unfair to expect Beasley to respond to a
decision he did not make. He has promised
to review what is placed before him, and to respond in a way that is best for
the citizens of Durham. That’s all that
can be expected. No candidate should be
forced to have a platform based on a decision they are not forced to make.

What Bocckino
fails to respect is the power of the Durham Committee during a presidential
election. Beasley didn’t need the endorsement
of the People’s Alliance. He gains
nothing in hiding a pro-growth agenda.
There are enough votes to win without the blessing of the People’s
Alliance.

To imply that
Hunter’s contribution to the Durham Committee proves the theory that Beasley is
in the pocket of developers is unfounded.
It’s unfair, malicious and has no place in this election. It’s rooted in speculation and is designed to
prevent Beasley from taking additional votes away from Fred Foster.

No laws have
been broken. A donation was made to
support the slate of the Durham Committee.
Would the conversation be shifted if Foster was on the Durham Committee slate? A more important question involves the
validity of engaging in a deeper discussion about how growth can be done in
Durham.

What is the
relationship between developers and government?
Do we want to become like Chapel Hill, and reject any movement toward
development? Or, do we assume that developers are the anti-Christ and reject
any thought of compromise.

If Beasley
decides to have that discussion, does that make him wrong? Or, does that make him open to new
possibilities. Bocckino and his
anti-development thugs should back off the negative rhetoric long enough to
give the process a chance to play out.

With that being
said, I am opposed to 751 South. More
conversation needs to be had. I think
that will happen, but it can’t when people are holding a pistol at your head
while forcing you to state your claim devoid of any conversation.

9 comments:

Well, I see what you are saying but I think that "pointing a pistol at your head" is a bit of hyperbole. And it is perfectly logical to follow the money, and in public life appearances count, something that Omar Beasley should understand by now. I almost am a little surprised about the paid poll workers thing and thanks for bringing that up! As a volunteers myself, I frankly think paying poll workers should be illegal. If a candidate can't rouse support for his cause, he shouldn't be running, and the playing field should be level.

I am new in this town and am poorly versed in the many struggles the black community has had here, includings those to make development go its way for once. But I think you do a disservice to your argument by using hyperbolic language like that.

So did the fact he use the hyperbole make what he said untrue? Yes, it is reasonable to follow the money. But is it also not reasonable to believe what a person says. Especially since his actions have not implied anything to the contrary? We certainly seem to have a lack of journalistic integrity at the Durham Herald and it is being highlighted during this election cycle.

I once heard a lawyer talk about circumstantial evidence, suggesting it was like a jigsaw puzzle, and he used as an example o puzzle showing a hamburger. He pointed out you didn't need to have all of the pieces in place to pretty well decide what the picture was.

This political donation is more or less like that, isn't it?

Absent any other evidence, it is not unreasonable to assume it is made to further the political agenda of the donor, or certainly it's fair to think it goes to a candidate whose views are consistent with those of the donor.

I guess by this logic I could reasonably assume that a candidate for president that receives an endorsement by lets say the KKK. That they are going to vote for a racist agenda. If I am not mistaken 751 is but one of the issues facing Durham County, and assuming that everyone on the slate for either of our two PAC's is going to vote for everything they want is a bad move. Especially in Beasley's case where he is on the record as undecided.

I stand corrected! According to Ed Harrison, Mayor Pro Tem in Chapel Hill, they have a pro growth position. "Carl, I would recommend getting your facts straight when posting something that could be read by a Chapel Hill elected official," he responded. "I've voted against more developments in the past half-decade than any colleague -- and that was about 15 percent of the applications. Chapel Hill Town Council has turned down a total of two development applications in 13 years, out of at least 200 that came to Council in that time period. Those are the facts, and I can document them in entirety."

I have asked Omar how he would have voted on the 751 issue had he been a commissioner. In my view it's an important indicator of how our community will grow -- continue the sprawl or focus on present developed areas in need. It matters because transportation costs will only grow in the future, our water needs are critical, and old-fashioned sprawl that accounts for neither can no longer be tolerated. This particular project also matters due to the way the developers carried it out. Omar ducks the question and takes no position. I find that more intolerable than taking a position I disagree with.

1) The Hunters' and other special interests' votes should not count more than those of us regular citizens, but through donations like this, they effectively do.

I could only donate about $50 to each candidate. So if $50 = a citizen, then the Hunters' donations amounts to 160 citizens. That's not Democracy.

Regardless of where you stand regarding Durham's future development (in-fill versus new, outer-edge development, for instance), it should be disturbing to every citizen when special interests throw big $ at candidates or political action groups (for Hunter, this amounts to 1/3 of the Committee's donations this year, counting their previous ~$14,000 report, according to the Herald Sun).

People don't hand over money like that for no reason.

2) Given the broken state of politics in this country, any lack of transparency should be concerning to ALL citizens. These people work for US -- so we should know who they are and where they stand on the issues.

By continually dodging the question regarding his stance on 751 South and, therefore, future developments on the edge of the county rather than in its center, where in-fill development is desperately needed, Beasley is clearly demonstrating a lack of transparency.

At the polls, he has told some voters that he is a Democrat AND others that he is not affiliated with either party and will remain unaffiliated. This is an even more broad dodge and demonstration that he is far from transparent.

Citizens need to ask themselves -- why should we vote for this person when we don't know who he is.

The other candidates have voluntarily donated their time and efforts in numerous ways for the Durham community (Planning Commission, NAACP, INC, etc.). Where is Omar's proven record?

He should serve Durham publicly before he runs for office. At least then we would know how he will truly vote on the issues that affect all of us.

P.S. This 751 South development saga has been going on since before my two year old son was even a thought! It has been through 1 watershed protection public hearing, two rezoning public hearings, a city annexation and utilities hearing, a county sewer agreement hearing, questions at candidates forums (which Beasley has disturbingly dodged), discussions at PACS (including the Friends, People's Alliance, Committee, INC) and who knows how many closed door meetings with government officials (we know of several back when Frank Duke was planning director and shortly thereafter).

I like Omar Beasley but I am suspect of his silence on the issue of 751. I was working for the Democratic Party at North Regional today next to Rod Cheney (he's the Tea Party Republican running for House 50 with billboards all over the place touting Voter ID, saying "NO" on the budget, etc). Cheney has started telling all the republicans who come to vote to vote for Beasley. These Republican voters over the past few days have called me a socialist, told me I don't believe in God because I'm voting for Obama, and so on. This also makes me wonder what Beasley has promised the Republicans if he gets elected. As you may know, many Republicans are being appointed to boards and commissions in Durham by the County Commissioners. The Democratic Party and the People's Alliance has taken notice and are rightly concerned. Without a voting record to go on and a record of commission/board work to review, I cannot support unaffiliated Beasley. The five seat Commission Board makes too many decisions that impact the future of Durham to roll the dice.

The Godfather of Soul

Total Pageviews

Carl W. Kenney II

Affectionately known as “Kenney the voice of many”, Carl was named the best serious columnist of 2011 by the North Carolina Press Association for his work with the News & Observer's community paper The Durham News. He is an Adjunct Professor at the University of Missouri - School of Journalism. He received his Bachelor’s degree in Journalism from the University of Missouri-Columbia. He furthered his education at Duke University and attained a Master of Divinity. He was named a Fellow in Pastoral Leadership Development at the Princeton Theological Seminary on May 14, 2005. He is a freelance writer with his commentary appearing in The News & Observer, The Independent Weekly and The Durham Herald-Sun. Carl is the author of two novels: “Preacha’ Man” and the sequel “Backslide”.
He has led congregations in Missouri and North Carolina.